Well, no such thing is written (normally), but the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch. Italian does something similar.

Well, no such thing is written (normally), but the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch. Italian does something similar.

Having not read the entire book yet in detail, I cant answer for that.
But, for example, in quaerit, caecum, haec, to name a few examples culled from the book, Adler places the circumflex on the second letter of the dipthong. This is the convention.
Sometimes in the textbook, a word has all the accents left out - and occasionally, the wrong accent is used. In such a long and complex book, such errors are inevitable.

Lucus Eques wrote:the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch.

According to the grammarians, Lucus, the accented antepenultimate syllable of polysyllables takes the acute tone no matter what, even if long by nature, and not the circumflex. Otherwise, the penultimate of disyllables or ultimate of monosyllables, if long by nature, take the circumflex. And never is the circumflex written with diphthongs, as you say. Adler prefers to express the accent on diphthongs and himself clearly articulates the tone rule, but Metrodorus doesn't understand him in this regard, especially when Adler obliges his printer to juggle between acuted antepenultimate dipthongs and circumflected penultimate diphthongs.

Lucus Eques wrote:the Romans did associate a stressed long syllable, including a diphthong, with a circumflex accent, that is a rise and fall of pitch.

According to the grammarians, Lucus, the accented antepenultimate syllable of polysyllables takes the acute tone no matter what, even if long by nature, and not the circumflex.

Aye. The question I was addressing in the very first post was for penults, not antepenults, which due to the following morae are of course, as you say, always acute in the Greek (and it would seem Roman) paradigm.

Adler's textbook has errata.
Sentences from the English are (very occasionally - I have fond two examples in 50 chapters, both in the Key) mistranslated, for example, usually a result of Adler misreading an English word in his rush to get the book completed, substituting for example 'brother' for 'father'.

There are no errors involving the circumflex on the dipthong, however, as far as I am aware.

A circumflex can never fall on an antepenult, and never does, not in Adler's textbook, nor in any other Latin textbook. There is no juggling. I am at a loss as to what you are referring to in Adler's textbook. Can you quote examples?

If the penult is long, two of the mora fall on the same vowel unit, be it a long by nature vowel, or a dipthong. The presence of two mora on one vowel, when followed by a single mora on the ultimate, gives rise to what is called the circumflex.

Having a circumflex on an antepenult would give the Latin word four stresses, however, the accent can only move back three, so an antepenultimate circumflex is an impossibility.

There is some disagreement about how to render the circumflex tonally, but no disagreement as to its presence.

Metrodorus wrote:Having not read the entire book yet in detail, I cant answer for that. But, for example, in quaerit, caecum, haec, to name a few examples culled from the book, Adler places the circumflex on the second letter of the dipthong. This is the convention. Sometimes in the textbook, a word has all the accents left out - and occasionally, the wrong accent is used. In such a long and complex book, such errors are inevitable...

...A circumflex can never fall on an antepenult, and never does, not in Adler's textbook, nor in any other Latin textbook. There is no juggling. I am at a loss as to what you are referring to in Adler's textbook. Can you quote examples?

You are not sure what errors are in Adler, but are sure what aren't? --and all textbooks! Best to read without shades, Metrodorus, although reading with or without shades is the least one might expect as a prelude to teaching, for the devil is in the detail. Ask a printer what he thinks about juggling and he will tell you he is a master of it. Even in the digital age, it is extremely difficult to accurately and diligently represent glyphs in fonts, especially ones lacking correct ligatures. I imagine Adler's printer was frustrated at having to place acutes over stressed antepenultimate diphthongs and circumflexes over penultimate diphthongs, and I suspect Adler would have been frustrated that he was not able (for whatever reason) to print with ligatures.

Metrodorus wrote:If the penult is long, two of the mora fall on the same vowel unit, be it a long by nature vowel, or a dipthong. The presence of two mora on one vowel, when followed by a single mora on the ultimate, gives rise to what is called the circumflex.

Having a circumflex on an antepenult would give the Latin word four stresses, however, the accent can only move back three, so an antepenultimate circumflex is an impossibility.

Erasmus might describe your syllogism as bearded and short-cloaked. 1. The definition of a circumflex accent has nothing to do with any following syllable. The way you put it, you couldn't have a circumflected ultimate. 2. You are mixing up "accent" and "stress". According to the grammarians, all syllables in a word have an accent but only one syllable is stressed (normally). Having a circumflex on an antepaenultimate syllable will not in itself give "four stresses" to a word. A circumflex indicates one stress (a single stressed syllable) even though it's a rising and falling tone.

sorry, not four stresses, four mora
And if a word has 2 mora, it will have a rising and falling tone, hence a circumflex on a word with only one long vowel by nature, as this gives 2 mora. At least, that is my understanding of it. The final tone is always a falling tone, or so I have gathered from what I have read. The first tone is always a rising tone.
If there are three tones, we get the 'three blind mice effect', a rise, followed by two falls. Rise-fall on the circumflex, and final fall-off tone on the final syllable. If the thee mora each fall on a separate vowel, then the tonal spread is over three vowels, each short by nature. If the penultimate syllable is long by position, then the word only has a rise and a fall on the last two syllables, as a penultimate syllable long by position takes the acute, not a circumflex.

I can't think of a word that could take a circumflex on the antepenult, as this word would have four mora ( not stresses, sorry for using the wrong term) hence my statement, in all books. Maybe I am wrong.

I don't have Adler's second edition. I expect many of the glitches, such as they are in the first edition, are fixed up in the second.
Adler's text is, in many ways, as carefully compiled as a dictionary, however, nothing is perfect.
Apologies for my sloppy terminology.
Evan.

You must have looked up "mora" in the dictionary or online when Lucus used it, but your understanding of it is just wrong. Surely we all should try to communicate clearly and honestly, and not try to pretend to know more than we actually do. Pretentiousness is often revealed in acquiring a vocabulary but not an understanding. It's easy to read a few books and make sweeping statements, and sadly we have an educational system founded upon just that. I say sadly, but we live in a world where those sorts of skills are rewarded, and that's the justification for institutionalised stupidy in quite a lot of teaching and research. Despite the satirical lambasts through the ages, institutionalised stupidity endures and no doubt always will. Many people may be fooled by pretentious trappings because of their vulnerability, not knowing how to distinguish an honest effort from a counterfeit. And who is to say that the bluffer has no right to make a living? At least his or her parents may be understandably proud and greatful for the opportunities the world affords.

It pains me to rant like this, Metrodorus, but these are the things that annoy me, in spite of my efforts at stoicism. I hope you will fight not to be like the person I describe above. Anyway, your understanding of "mora" is completely askew. A mora is just a measure of time or a time weighting,--a short vowel or syllable having a time weighting of one mora and a long vowel or diphthong or syllable having a time weighting of two. So your "if a word has 2 mora, it will have a rising and falling tone" and "I can't think of a word that could take a circumflex on the antepenult, as this word would have four mora" are just complete misunderstandings.

on page 76, he summarises the rules for accent and gives references to the ancient authorities for these rules.

metrodorus, adrianus, i would be grateful if you could you each please let me know whether or not you agree with those rules on page 76, and if not, which sentence(s) of bennett should be modified in your opinion, and on the basis of which authorities?

this will be helpful to me because, by each starting from the same set of rules and vocab, i will be able to see where your positions differ.

thanks in advance

Last edited by cb on Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hi, CB.
My argument with Metrodorus is not over the rules of accentuation in Latin, because the rules are so simple and clearly stated, by Bennett and Adler, for example (and I've talked elsewhere about the exceptions to the rules). My argument with him is over his taking very simple rules and trying to explain them in careless, confused and misleading ways, while attempting to sound authoritative.
I also suspected that the problems with accenting which he suggested were in Adler had more to do with his understanding of the rules of accenting. He now understands the rules better and may not find so many wrong accents in Adler. Maybe I'm being unfair but, for those reasons outlined above, I tend to be suspicious. Also, still learning, I love trying to express things in Latin and possibly that leads me to say things better left unsaid.

I wonder if all these Roman pitch accent writings weren't just overstating the obvious ... My professed greatest interest in Latin has been the spoken language, in particular that of the ancients. Still ... I think we all need to do some major Skyping to figure this stuff out verbally, rather than struggle for hours describing things we aren't even sure about.

Lucus wrote:I wonder if all these Roman pitch accent writings weren't just overstating the obvious

To an extent, indeed, but I have copies of the Kiel volumes and they are just wonderful to swim in because of the skill and quality of so many observations from these early centuries. Stick with the primary sources because they open your eyes and ears.
JuxtÃ¢ casum quidem, at librorum apographa Kielis habeo quae pro te immergendo mira sunt ob tot peritas bellasque observationes horum saeculorum priscorum. Ad fontes authenticas redi et oculi auresque tibi auscultabuntur.

I still fail to see what was misleading in my explanation, and I think we have been arguing in circles, and that, despite the argument over terminology, there has been no disagreement. My original reply which was to clarify for a reader as to whether a dipthong counted as heavy ( in Siher's borrowing of Sanskrit terminology - i.e. having 2 morae, or being a syllable /vowel long by nature) and so when penultimate, took the circumflex. I think I answered the user's question very clearly, in terms that he would have understood, that yes, such a dipthong does take the circumflex, when followed by a syllable with a short vowel (or, conversely, a syllable with a vowel of one mora). To quote Monstarde "the circumflex accent ^ represents a rise of pitch over the first mora of a long vowel followed by a return to standard pitch over the second mora." This terminology of the mora and contonation is also used by WS Allen in his description of the Greek accent.

Adler so marks the dipthong. There are few printed Latin texts that consistently mark the accents using Adler's methodology, explicitly marking the circumflexes and acutes. (I have not yet come across another such) So far I have read through 400 pages of Adler more or less microscopically. I can't vouch for the remaining 300 odd pages, as I have not yet examined them with the same intensity.

My understanding of the rules of accentuation in Latin has not changed from the beginning of this discussion to the end of it.
There are two main methods of describing the phenomena that I have come across in the literature: one using the theoretical construct of the mora, and another, talking about syllabification, and the weight of vowels. Both of these are used by authorities, some preferring one over the other, often both are referred to.

If you can point me to some examples on google books or elsewhere online, of texts that are fully accented using the circumflex and acute, I would really be interested in looking at them. I am always looking for accurately accented texts, particularly texts of the Classic authors.

I have come across older texts that use the circumflex to mark a final long A on a first declension ablative, but this is a different thing altogether.

One problem that exists with the way some older texts that are accented, which was pointed out to me by Alatius, is the problem of texts using macrons to mark syllable length, not vowel length. Some of the older texts do this, and it is very confusing, for example, one text I recall marked the I of magister with a macron, as it is a syllable which is long by position. The syllable is long, but the vowel is short by nature.

Adler marks some vowels of hidden quantity with the acute. For example, a vowel before 'ns' in the penultimate, even when followed by a short vowel, will get the acute in Adler. I am not sure if it should get the circumflex, but logically, as the vowel is actually long, although of hidden quantity, to my mind, it should. The syllable is, I assume, not regarded as long by position, but long by nature..... I am not actually sure of what the correct rule is in this circumstance. I have asked around, and yet remain uncertain. How would you treat such a long vowel as long by nature (although hidden) - would you give it the acute, or a circumflex?

Metrodorus wrote:Adler marks some vowels of hidden quantity with the acute. For example, a vowel before 'ns' in the penultimate, even when followed by a short vowel, will get the acute in Adler. I am not sure if it should get the circumflex, but logically, as the vowel is actually long, although of hidden quantity, to my mind, it should. The syllable is, I assume, not regarded as long by position, but long by nature..... I am not actually sure of what the correct rule is in this circumstance. I have asked around, and yet remain uncertain. How would you treat such a long vowel as long by nature (although hidden) - would you give it the acute, or a circumflex?

Adler's errors? Is what I said not borne out?
Errores Adleris? NonnÃ¨ rectÃ¨ dixi?

I would not regard Adler's accentuation as in error.
Adler was using German philologic sources for his lexicographical information. He says quite explicitly that for quantity he relies on George's Lateinisch-Deutches Hand-Worterbuch (Leipsic 1855). The acute would be correct if one regarded these syllables as long by position. Some grammarians do (did?) so.

Regarding the vowel before ns, Bennet quotes an ancient source ( I can't recall from memory whom) saying that words such as consul take the circumflex.
This is how I treat them in my reading - as long by nature, but of hidden quantity.

metrodorus wrote:I would not regard Adler's accentuation as in error. Adler was using German philologic sources for his lexicographical information. He says quite explicitly that for quantity he relies on George's Lateinisch-Deutches Hand-Worterbuch (Leipsic 1855). The acute would be correct if one regarded these syllables as long by position. Some grammarians do (did?) so.

That's right. Some grammarians did so and do so.
ItÃ est, ut grammatici quidam putaverunt putantque.

PS. Does Bennett really report Cicero as saying that "consul" takes the circumflex, or does he say rather that the "o" in consul is long? I'm not looking at Bennett so maybe I'm wrong. A long "o" would indeed be circumflected but I would suspect you're modifying Cicero's words reported by Bennett. Am I wrong?